Study of Chinese Learners' Pedagogical Choices in Korean
In addition to learner-internal influences, CLKs' awareness of the need to be pragmatic and the social ties they had access to were crucial. 프라그마틱 무료 pragmatickr from TS & ZL, for example were able to cite their local professor relationship as a key factor in their rational decision to avoid criticizing a strict professor (see the example 2).
This article reviews all local pragmatic research on Korean until 2020. It focuses on core practical issues, including:
Discourse Construction Tests
The discourse completion test is a popular tool in the field of pragmatic research. It has many advantages, but it also has some disadvantages. For instance the DCT is unable to account for cultural and individual differences in communication. The DCT can also be biased and result in overgeneralizations. Therefore, it must be carefully analyzed before it is used for research or assessment purposes.
Despite its limitations, the DCT can be a valuable tool to study the relationship between prosody and information structure in non-native speakers. The ability to alter social variables relevant to politeness in two or more steps could be a benefit. This can assist researchers understand the role of prosody in communication across different cultural contexts, a major challenge in cross-cultural pragmatics.
In the field of linguistics, the DCT has become one of the primary instruments for analyzing learners' communication behaviors. It can be used to study various aspects that include politeness, turn-taking, and lexical choice. It can also be used to assess the phonological complexity of learners' speech.
Recent research utilized a DCT as a tool to assess the ability to resist of EFL students. The participants were given an array of scenarios and asked to select an appropriate response from the options provided. The authors concluded that the DCT was more effective than other measures to stop people from refusing, including a questionnaire and video recordings. However, the researchers warned that the DCT should be employed with caution and include other data collection methods.
DCTs are often designed with specific linguistic criteria in mind, such as content and form. These criteria are intuitive and are based on the assumptions of the test developers. They are not always precise and could misrepresent how ELF learners actually reject requests in real-world interactions. This issue requires more research into alternative methods of assessing the ability to refuse.
In a recent study, DCT responses to student inquiries via email were compared with the responses of an oral DCT. The results showed that the DCT encouraged more direct and conventionally indirect request forms and a lower use of hints than email data did.
Metapragmatic Questionnaires (MQs)
This study investigated Chinese learners' pragmatic choices in their use of Korean by using a range of tools that were tested, including Discourse Completion Tasks (DCTs) as well as metapragmatic questionnaires and Refusal Interviews (RIs). Participants were 46 CLKs with upper-intermediate proficiency who gave responses to DCTs and MQs. They were also asked for reflections on their assessments and refusals in RIs. The results showed that CLKs often chose to defy native Korean pragmatism norms. Their decisions were influenced by four factors such as their personality and multilingual identities, their ongoing lives, as well as their relationship affordances. These findings have pedagogical implications for L2 Korean assessment.
The MQ data was first analyzed to identify the participants' actual choices. The data was categorized according Ishihara (2010)'s definition of pragmatic resistance. Then, we compared their selections with their linguistic performance using DCTs to determine if they were indicative of pragmatic resistance. The interviewees also had to explain why they chose the pragmatic approach in certain situations.
The results of the MQs and DCTs were then examined using descriptive statistics and z-tests. It was found that CLKs frequently resorted to phrases like "sorry" and "thank you." This was likely due to their lack of familiarity with the target language, which led to a lack of understanding of korea pragmatic norms. The results revealed that CLKs' preferences to diverge from L1 and 2 norms or to move towards L1 varied depending on the DCT situations. For instance, in Situations 3 and 12, the CLKs preferred to diverge from both L1 and L2 pragmatic norms while in Situation 14 they preferred converging to L1 norms.
The RIs also revealed that the CLKs were aware their own pragmatism in each DCT situation. The RIs were conducted one-to-one basis within two days of participants having completed the MQs. The RIs were recorded and transcribed, and then coded by two independent coders. The coding process was an iterative process in which the coders read and discussed each transcript. The coding results were then evaluated against the original RI transcripts, which gave an indication of how well the RIs were able to capture the fundamental behavior.
Refusal Interviews
A key question of pragmatic research is why learners decide to rescind pragmatic norms that native speakers use. Recent research attempted to answer this question with a variety of experimental tools including DCTs MQs and RIs. Participants included 46 CLKs and 44 CNSs from five Korean Universities. Participants were asked to complete the DCTs and MQs in their L1 or L2. Then, they were invited to a RI where they were asked to think about their responses to the DCT situations.
The results showed that CLKs on average, did not adhere to the patterns of native speakers in more than 40 percent of their responses. They did this despite the fact that they could produce native-like patterns. They were aware of their practical resistance. They attributed their choice to learner-internal factors such as their personality and multilingual identities. They also spoke of external factors like relational benefits. For example, they described how their relationships with professors facilitated more relaxed performance in regards to the linguistic and intercultural rules of their university.
The interviewees expressed concern about the social pressures or consequences they might face if their local social norms were not followed. They were concerned that their native interactants might consider them "foreigners" and believe that they are unintelligent. This was a concern similar to the concerns expressed by Brown (2013) and Ishihara (2009).
These findings suggest that native speakers' pragmatic norms are not the default preference for Korean learners. They may still be useful for official Korean proficiency testing. Future researchers should consider reassessing the validity of these tests in various cultural contexts and specific situations. This will help them better understand how different cultural environments could affect the practical behavior of L2 learners in the classroom and beyond. Furthermore this will allow educators to create more effective methods to teach and test the korea's pragmatics. Seukhoon Paul Choi, principal advisor at Stratways Group in Seoul, is a geopolitical risk consulting.
Case Studies
The case study method is a research strategy that utilizes intensive, participant-centered research to investigate a specific topic. This method uses numerous sources of information like documents, interviews, and observations, to support its findings. This kind of research can be used to study specific or complicated subjects that are difficult for other methods to measure.
In a case study, the first step is to clearly define both the subject and the goals of the study. This will allow you to determine which aspects of the subject matter are essential for investigation and which ones could be left out. It is also helpful to review the existing literature to gain a better understanding of the subject. It will also help put the issue within a larger theoretical framework.
This case study was based on an open source platform, the KMMLU leaderboard [50] and its benchmarks that are specific to Korea, HyperCLOVA X and LDCC-Solar (figure 1 below). The results of the study showed that L2 Korean learners were particularly vulnerable to the influence of native models. They were more likely to choose incorrect answer choices that were literal interpretations of prompts, deviating from the correct pragmatic inference. They also showed a distinct tendency to add their own words or "garbage" to their responses. This lowered the quality of their answers.
The participants in this study were all L2 Korean students who had achieved level four in the Test of Proficiency in Korean TOPIK in their third or second year of university and were hoping to achieve level six on their next attempt. They were asked questions regarding their WTC/SPCC, pragmatic awareness and understanding and perception of the world.
The interviewees were presented with two scenarios, each involving a hypothetical interaction with their interactants and asked to choose one of the following strategies to use when making an inquiry. They were then asked to provide the reasons behind their decision. Most participants attributed their pragmatic opposition to their personalities. TS, for example stated that she was difficult to get along with and refused to inquire about her interlocutor's well-being when they were working at a high rate despite the fact that she thought native Koreans would.